https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303507 Statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 were held not to be confessions made to a police officer for section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, because Customs officers exercise limited, special powers aimed at revenue protection and prevention of smuggling rather than police-like control for detecting crime. Section 104(3) and the power to grant bail did not make a Customs officer equivalent to an officer in charge of a police station, so section 25 did not apply. Article 20(3) also did not bar the statements on the facts, as they were recorded before any formal accusation, and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply because Customs officers are not police officers. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303507 Statements recorded by Customs officers under the Customs Act, 1962 were held not to be confessions made to a police officer for section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, because Customs officers exercise limited, special powers aimed at revenue protection and prevention of smuggling rather than police-like control for detecting crime. Section 104(3) and the power to grant bail did not make a Customs officer equivalent to an officer in charge of a police station, so section 25 did not apply. Article 20(3) also did not bar the statements on the facts, as they were recorded before any formal accusation, and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply because Customs officers are not police officers. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303507